• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

From Tupac to Rosa Parks: KY county clerk Kim Davis says "Only God can judge me now"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
You made it sound like the adultery due to divorce was not a correct interpretation of the bible, yet one of the largest denominations disagrees. I also thinks it's fair to call her out on it since I don't think she'd be too happy if she had to drive from county to county to find a clerk who would judge her morals.

I'm not arguing what is the correct interpretation of the Bible regarding this issue; my argument is that there's a plausible interpretation under which her ongoing relationship with her current husband isn't sinful. The claim that she's hypocritical relies on the further claim that she must adopt the interpretation that you attribute to "one of the largest denominations." But I don't see that as the only plausible interpretation, so you'd have to go one step further--show that she actually believes her own current relationship is sinful--to show hypocrisy.

Not constitutionally they aren't. And being as this is going to be a legal argument thing we'd have to look hard at the constitution. Obviously in practice this is exactly what they do, but it doesn't have a constitutional basis. That is apparent from the provision about a "vacancy in the office" ...

I don't follow. We're discussing the statutory term "absence," so I don't see how the Kentucky Constitution is relevant.

... so we'd need to consider whether the Clerk is "absent" independently of whether in practice the rest of the office is getting the day-to-day job done.

Again, I don't follow. If the statutory concept of "absence" does not include the situation where the deputies continue to fulfill the duties of the office, then we'd have to consider whether the deputies are continuing to fulfill those duties. It seems like you're begging the question regarding whether "absence" applies in that scenario or not.

Another consideration is 402.100(1)(a) and (c):

Notice that in (c) the signature may be that of the clerk or a deputy - but in (a) the authorisation statement must be that of the clerk - a deputy will not do. That's the bit where the judge/executive needs to take over. But otherwise ...

The authorization is preprinted on the license form, as I understand it. So, the clerk doesn't have to be physically present for the authorization to appear on the form. This doesn't help resolve the meaning of "absence."

Are you arguing that being born again nulls all present and future sins?

No. I'm arguing that there is a plausible interpretation of the Bible in which a person who divorces and remarries prior to conversion does not commit adultery when he or she sleeps with his or her second spouse following conversion.

I personally don't feel like arguing this anymore.

Honestly, it doesn't seem like you felt like arguing it at any point.
 

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
Been saying this the whole time. She can't get money through fundraising sites for illegal activities (which this is).

There's one out there specifically for fundies that got around this to support one of those homophobic bakeries a few months back. Their TOS didn't seem to mention anything about illegal activities.
 
D

Deleted member 13876

Unconfirmed Member
Been saying this the whole time. She can't get money through fundraising sites for illegal activities (which this is).

Someone out there right now is coding a "politically incorrect" fundraising site to capitalize on this.

Edit:

There's one out there specifically for fundies that got around this to support one of those homophobic bakeries a few months back. Their TOS didn't seem to mention anything about illegal activities.

Never mind.
 

lednerg

Member
mug
umCpEJD.jpg

Love the 6-66 above her head.
 

pigeon

Banned
There's one out there specifically for fundies that got around this to support one of those homophobic bakeries a few months back. Their TOS didn't seem to mention anything about illegal activities.

They're just waiting to get slapped with aiding and abetting, then.
 
There's one out there specifically for fundies that got around this to support one of those homophobic bakeries a few months back. Their TOS didn't seem to mention anything about illegal activities.

Can't they just seize these donations since they funded illegal activities and sue (and possibly arrest) the owners of the site?
 

riotous

Banned
Can't they just seize these donations since they funded illegal activities and sue (and possibly arrest) the owners of the site?

Wouldn't they just have to word the petition correctly?

Like "Help our friend's family while she's in jail"

It's not illegal to give someone money who has committed crimes.
 

Par Score

Member
For the love of god, every thread about this: Who cares if a bunch of bigots get together to make another bigot rich?

This money isn't appearing out of thin air! Bigots who hate gay people already had this money! It's a zero-sum game in the bigot economy, the bigots are not getting rich off of this, ther're just transferring their bigot wealth.

I don't care if this lady makes $1 Billion Bigot-Bucks outta this deal, because the law of the land regarding equal marriage will have been upheld and a bunch of other bigots will be $1 Billion worse off.
 

danm999

Member
For the love of god, every thread about this: Who cares if a bunch of bigots get together to make another bigot rich?

This money isn't appearing out of thin air! Bigots who hate gay people already had this money! It's a zero-sum game in the bigot economy, the bigots are not getting rich off of this, their just transferring their bigot wealth.

I don't care if this lady makes $1 Billion Bigot-Bucks outta this deal, because the law of the land regarding equal marriage will have been upheld and a bunch of other bigots will be $1 Billion worse off.

Gotta agree. Let other bigots throw good money after bad.
 

BokehKing

Banned
Well at least one judge was thinking straight today.

I'm sorry but as I grow older I'm becoming less enchanted with religion, and stories like are why.

I'm a good Catholic boy, but damn, we are making decisions based on the word of a man or entity that is as real as Santa clause?

I mean yeah obviously wars have been fought over beliefs for centuries, it just boggles my mind though... How the rationale of this world works.
 

Hale-XF11

Member
It just amazes me that anyone could possibly think that someone should be allowed to force their religious beliefs upon the general public from a publicly elected position when we clearly do not live in a theocracy. The ignorance is astounding.
 
not sure if already posted, but her lawyers on Facebook:
6EhnrNm.png

Ah yes. The "liberty" fighters on Facebook.

Nevermind people's liberties to legally enter a marriage contract without someone infringing on their rights.

Liberty only means my liberty. Fuck everyone else's liberty.

This is how these "liberty" advocates work. Elect us so we can leave you alone!
 

riotous

Banned
Way to generalize.

That was about one specific editorial and how it was written; not every religious person talks in humble-brags and confusing double-speak. Ironically you accusing me of generalizing is sort of assuming that all religious people act the same way.
 

DOWN

Banned
It still blows my mind when people say "Kentucky didn't vote for same-sex marriage!!" as if they truly don't know that the Supreme Court is higher law to interpret the constitution, and can rule state laws unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what Kentucky voted for if there's already final word from the Supreme Court on the laws that exist, but they keep mentioning that Kim was just abiding by the will of Kentucky over and over.
 
That was about one specific editorial and how it was written; not every religious person talks in humble-brags and confusing double-speak. Ironically you accusing me of generalizing is sort of assuming that all religious people act the same way.
That's my bad then, I misunderstood.
 

riotous

Banned
That's my bad then, I misunderstood.

The guy I quoted was generalizing; my train of thought was about reading the Fox News article.

No big deal; I can see where it comes across like I'm one-upping the generalization. I do understand many religious people; I do not understand the ones who use their religion to place themselves on a pedestal while simultaneously claiming they are just humble servants.
 
Well now she's really been turned into a hero/martyr for the right... Great.

It is. Now they have to explain why believing the law should be inferior to religious ideology is the proper course for America, and how that is any different from the Sharia law they claim to hate so much.
 

Rebel Leader

THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
It is. Now they have to explain why believing the law should be inferior to religious ideology is the proper course for America, and how that is any different from the Sharia law they claim to hate so much.

How will they do this is beyond my knowledge.
 

riotous

Banned
It is. Now they have to explain why believing the law should be inferior to religious ideology is the proper course for America, and how that is any different from the Sharia law they claim to hate so much.

Unfortunately all too easy for them to explain.

They do not believe the U.S. Government is secular; it and it's laws are Christian. They believe Christianity is the right way, Islam the wrong way.
 

Trakdown

Member
Well now she's really been turned into a hero/martyr for the right... Great.

Oh no, now she'll probably get a book deal and time on Fox News and fuck all else!! The horror!!!

Please. This is Joe The Plumber part 2. And the sequels always lose something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom